D500 Lossless vs Uncompressed 14-Bit

HeldInTheMoment · Nov 8, 2016

Title says it all really, is there any disadvantage to using lossless 14-bit RAW (NEF) files?

Advanced Photo · Nov 8, 2016

YES!!! You can convert then yourself instead of relying on algorithms based on averages developed by a group of technicians that never saw the photo you just took.
As for 14 bit vs 12 bit. YES, the more data you preserve the better the image will be.

Vtec44 · Nov 8, 2016

HeldInTheMoment said:
Title says it all really, is there any disadvantage to using lossless 14-bit RAW (NEF) files?

Nothing noticeable. I shoot weddings with a D800 as my primary camera, uncompressed RAW files are about 80MB and lossless compressed files are about 40MB each. To be honest, I can't tell the difference. When I do commercial work, I do let clients know ahead of time but I haven't had an editor that requested full uncompressed files. So I leave the settings on permanently on all of my cameras (D600, D700, D800, D750). I'm suspecting it's the same, or close, with the D500.

Edit: I regularly print out 30x40 canvases and prints and I see no difference. Your eyes can't see the difference in slight variations, and most printers don't need to produce that many colors because human eyes can't tell the difference up to a certain point.

Advanced Photo · Nov 8, 2016

On a small sized print, it is not noticeable as indicated above, however as the print sizes increase so does the notability of the image defects and lower color gamut.

Derrel · Nov 8, 2016

Nikon D300 & D300s Review | byThom | Thom Hogan

Read this and see one Nikon expert's opinion on how good "lossless compressed" NEFs were a few years ago, compared to 14-bit uncompressed NEFs...his later reviews have the same basic conclusion: generally NOT worth shooting uncompressed NEF, nor not really worth moving to 14-bit NEF from 12-bit NEF in most cases...mostly a theoretical or almost-invisible "difference"...if indeed, there even is any practical difference realized.

excerpt from above URL:"
Of course, that brings us to "is 14-bit really better than 12-bit?" A definite maybe on that. First, note that the camera is always 12-bit when you shoot JPEG or TIFF (yes, it shoots TIFF, another addition to the D200 that the nano-bots got round to). If you shoot NEF, you get to choose whether to shoot 12-bit or 14-bit, and whether to shoot Compressed, Lossless Compressed, or Uncompressed (the nano-bots aren't very good at naming things ;~). To some degree, your converter is going to impact whether you can pull anything additional out of a 14-bit image that you can't out of a 12-bit. First, the place the difference is most likely to show up is noise in the near black realm, and in my experience, there's a lot of variability in converter capability in this range. Second, the difference really isn't enough at the low ISO values to be visible without you making big linearity changes to the shadows (e.g. D-Lighting). Finally, I'm not sure most people know what it is they're looking for, so they just won't see it even if it's there. Even with my trained eyes it took me awhile before I could consistently see the modest difference 14-bit makes. This is no different than the old "does Compressed NEF create a visible difference" question we grappled with for years. Same answer: for most of you, no, it doesn't matter. If you're really trying to get "optimal data" then you'll not shoot Compressed NEF nor 12-bit.

I can't see any real need for Uncompressed NEF now that we have Lossless Compressed. No compression just means bigger files, and bigger files mean fewer images per card and shorter battery life"

Derrel · Nov 8, 2016

But, note the last line in the first excerpted paragraph: "If you're really trying to get "optimal data" then you'll not shoot Compressed NEF nor 12-bit."

Vtec44 · Nov 8, 2016

Derrel said:
But, note the last line in the first excerpted paragraph: "If you're really trying to get "optimal data" then you'll not shoot Compressed NEF nor 12-bit."

Yep. On paper there is a difference. In real life practical application, it's extremely hard to tell. If people really need to extract the very last bit of data then maybe learning how to shoot better is a more optimal route!

Advanced Photo · Nov 8, 2016

A lot of qualifiers in those statements..."generally, mostly, almost", and with the storage devices we have today at several terabytes being common, and the speed of the processors, GPU's, and RAM we use today to process the files, I can see no reason not to use the highest quality the camera will allow for those cases that it actually does make a visible difference since you can never be sure when those cases will be and having it always shoot the better quality is a very good and very cheap insurance policy. For me at least. If it is "maybe" better and the cost of it is so low combined with today's tech and the quality of the RAW converters available for such a low price ($299.00 for Capture One Pro 9, 3 seat license) why wouldn't you opt for the better method? As monitors and printing methods get better you can be fairly sure those 'almost invisible' quality differences will become more of a noticeable factor every day and if you use the state of the art today, it's visible to you right now.
Of course if you are processing with ancient tech and viewing on a small low resolution monitor and printing with old technology, then yeah, it won't be noticeable to you at all.

Derrel · Nov 8, 2016

Exactly!!! In "real life" there does not seem to be much, if any, difference, for most people, using most converters, under most circumstances, for most shooting scenarios.

As to the D500 for Nikon: Nikon D500 Review

Nikon D500 test results, With a Lexar Pro 2,933x speed-rated XQD card!

14-bit lossless RAW + Large Fine JPEG buffer....27 frames total. 4 seconds to clear a buffer.

14-bit lossless compressed RAW: 200 frames total, 3 seconds to clear buffer.

Large Fine JPEG, 200 frames total buffer, 1.0 second to clear buffer.

So....there is a HUGE performance penalty with the D500. Twenty-seven uncompressed NEFs in a buffer, and four second to write those out to an ULTRA-speed XQD card.

Do you want a camera that shoots 27 RAW images, or one that can shoot 200 (two hundred) compressed 14-bit images, and three seconds required to clear that buffer?

27 images. Or 200 images.

Advanced Photo · Nov 8, 2016

Derrel said:
Exactly!!! In "real life" there does not seem to be much, if any, difference, for most people, using most converters, under most circumstances, for most shooting scenarios.

As to the D500 for Nikon: Nikon D500 Review

Nikon D500 test results, With a Lexar Pro 2,933x speed-rated XQD card!

14-bit lossless RAW + Large Fine JPEG buffer....27 frames total. 4 seconds to clear a buffer.

14-bit lossless compressed RAW: 200 frames total, 3 seconds to clear buffer.

Large Fine JPEG, 200 frames total buffer, 1.0 second to clear buffer.

So....there is a HUGE performance penalty with the D500. Twenty-seven uncompressed NEFs in a buffer, and four second to write those out to an ULTRA-speed XQD card.

Do you want a camera that shoots 27 RAW images, or one that can shoot 200 (two hundred) compressed 14-bit images, and three seconds required to clear that buffer?

27 images. Or 200 images.

I want whatever will give me better results on the equipment that I use for my after camera workflow. That's the highest quality image the camera will capture.
I don't usually shoot a lot of frames quickly with my still camera, if I want to capture fast moving action, I shoot in 4k video and select the frames I want to print later.
To me quality is a LOT more important than speed.
I don't see that as a huge penalty, I see it as the price of excellence. Heck my Seitz camera takes one shot per second, but the 160 million pixels are so awesome to work with later, I don't mind that one bit.

Derrel · Nov 8, 2016

The fact of the matter is, the world's foremost expert in Nikon technology can barely see ANY difference between 12 or 14 bit capture. And the Nikon D500 is a "speed" camera, with a 20.9 MP sensor...it is made for SPEED. The goal here is to try to answer questions for the people who pose them, for the gear THEY own. Maybe try that sometime? Maybe try to tailor answers to the people who own specific items? Maybe more about THEM, and less about "you"?

Advanced Photo · Nov 8, 2016

Just the facts.

Vtec44 · Nov 8, 2016

Derrel said:
The fact of the matter is, the world's foremost expert in Nikon technology can barely see ANY difference between 12 or 14 bit capture. And the Nikon D500 is a "speed" camera, with a 20.9 MP sensor...it is made for SPEED. The goal here is to try to answer questions for the people who pose them, for the gear THEY own. Maybe try that sometime? Maybe try to tailor answers to the people who own specific items? Maybe more about THEM, and less about "you"?

Yep, I see no noticeable difference even at prints at 30x40.

I'd assume Nikon uses similar algorithm in their cameras. I have 34TB of total storage, no need to waste it if I can't really see the return of investment.

Advanced Photo · Nov 8, 2016

I see a difference in quality between the two. Enough that the size difference is no concern with the low cost of storage and archiving devices.
If I didn't see a difference, it wouldn't matter to me either. I guess I can see slightly more detail than some can. Some have an eye for that and some don't. If you can't see it, why use the best quality available?
I often print at 44 x 124.5 and there is a big difference then.